Mood: surprised
MJJForum eNews #393 - October 8, 2004
Defense lawyers for entertainer Michael Jackson have argued that District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and his team of prosecutors should be removed from the case due to a conflict of interest.
The motion, originally filed on October 4th, was unsealed on Thursday revealing further details of the DA?s alleged vendetta against the superstar.
Jackson supporters and members of the media have for some time speculated that Sneddon is too personally involved in the case following his failed attempt to prosecute the singer in 1993.
The 34-page motion, still partially blacked out, claims Sneddon is "blinded by his zeal to convict Michael Jackson" and should be removed from the case. The defense further states the DA?s office "have an actual conflict of interest . . . that is so grave it is unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial."
Much of the document?s content had previously been included in a motion to dismiss the indictment against Mr. Jackson. Both motions cite Sneddon?s bias during grand jury proceedings. Judge Rodney Melville has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the grand jury indictment.
In the unsealed documents, defense attorney Steve Cochran points out that the accuser?s mother was allowed to refer to Mr. Jackson as ?the devil? during her testimony to the grand jury. He further claims that she "prejudiced the grand jury with wild tales of 'killers' and secret conversations in 'code' despite a total lack of support for this version of events by other witnesses, including her own family."
Jackson?s team also contends that prosecutors "poisoned the well" during the hearings by allowing testimony about the 1993 case. It is also alleged that former county Sheriff, Jim Thomas, was allowed to leak prejudicial information about the case to the media.
This followed Judge Melville?s ruling that Thomas, now an NBC consultant, was not covered by the gag order preventing anyone involved in the case speaking publicly about it. The former Sheriff has said that while he does have a friendship with Sneddon, they do not discuss the current case and claims he did not leak information.
The tenuous relationship between the accuser?s parents was also highlighted during grand jury proceedings. Rocky relations between the two resulted in divorce and a restraining order being placed against the father.
At one point, it is revealed, he took photographs of his then wife as she came towards him with a stick. Prosecutors implied the boy?s father had sold this photograph to a tabloid newspaper. Jackson?s team claim this was an attempt by the prosecution to "sully the jurors' opinion" of the boy?s father. He still denies having sold the pictures.
The motion further points out that the investigation itself only began following the airing of a British documentary, ?Living with Michael Jackson?. The program left a "misimpression that Mr. Jackson had slept in the same bed with (the victim.)" Mr. Cochran notes that both Jackson and the boy say in the documentary that the singer slept on the floor while his accuser used the bed.
Jackson?s defense team also attacked Sneddon?s public demeanor during a news conference held to announce the arrest warrant again Mr. Jackson late last year. Many felt his jovial behavior was inappropriate.
Cochran again pointed out that Sneddon overstepped his boundaries as prosecutor when he personally led surveillance of an office belonging to a private investigator working for then Jackson attorney, Mark Geragos.
In an unusual move, Sneddon was called to testify in August and claimed his decision to personally conduct the surveillance was made out of convenience, as he happened to be in the area that day.
Also in the defense spotlight is Court TV and former Hard Copy journalist, Diane Dimond, who has been reporting on Jackson since 1993. In the newly released documents, defense attorneys have requested copies of any notes Sneddon had made of meetings with Dimond.
Prosecutors have requested that the motion to remove Sneddon not be heard during the next pre-trial hearing on October 14th. It is not yet known which motions will be heard on this date.
Source: SBNews-Press/NYPost/MJJForum
Posted by MJ Friend Anna
at 11:58 AM JST
Updated: Sun, Oct 10 2004 12:13 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Updated: Sun, Oct 10 2004 12:13 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post